Afzal Guru and Indian government’s new, tough message

Right from 2005—the year when the Supreme Court upheld Afzal Guru’s death sentence handed out originally by the designated special court—and later confirmed by the Delhi high court—in the 13th December 2001 Parliament attack case—a strong line of opinion held that Afzal was at best a scapegoat—a victim of the machinations of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Task Force (STF)—and the Delhi Police Special Cell.

There were strong and genuine reasons behind several groups and individuals — including respected lawyers like Nandita Haksar—adopting this position. Afzal’s several letters, statements made by Tabassum, his wife, and a host of human rights activists — even senior advocates like Ram Jethmalani — show that Afzal was a Kashmiri militant who surrendered to the BSF in 1993; thereafter, fighting odds stacked against surrendered militants, he started his own business in surgical equipments in Kashmir; seeing him doing well, the Jammu and Kashmir STF and even sections of the Indian army started harassing him for money; he was picked up and tortured on several occasions; one such instance saw him shelling Rs 100,000 to stave off torture; the pressure on him — as on all ex-militants — was that he should become a Special Police Officer (SPO) or an informer of the Indian army; during one of his torture sessions, Afzal met Tariq, a person working for the J&K STF. Tariq advised him to cooperate with the STF; soon, in 2001, STF’s Davinder Singh, who besides extracting money, had tormented Afzal on several occasions, asked him to take a man to Delhi.

The letter

Afzal’s letter says that Muhammad, the man he was asked to take to Delhi by the STF, did not speak Kashmiri. Muhammad gave Rs. 35,000 to Afzal in Delhi. Afzal went back to Kashmir after the 13th December 2001 Parliament attack. There, the STF took him into custody; after torturing and robbing him of Rs. 35,000, the STF handed him over to the Delhi Police Special Cell.

Afzal learned that Muhammad was one of the five militants killed during the 13th December Parliament attack. The other four included Tariq, the man Afzal had met while being tortured by the J&K STF.

Shocking omissions

Among the other three — Hamza, Raja and Rana — Hamza apparently, was arrested by the Thane Police and handed over to the J&K Police in December 2000. In fact, SM Shangari, the then Thane Police Commissioner, recognized Hamza among photos of dead militants in the Parliament attack flashed across India by the media. Shangari noted uncanny similarities between blueprints, arms and ammunition recovered from Hamza in the Thane arrests and the dead person carrying the same name in the Parliament attack. Shangari contacted J&K Police with his stunning discovery—saying that it was a case of `mistaken identity’, K Rajendra, the then Inspector-General of J&K Police, dismissed Shangari’s findings.

Bizarre judgment

Now comes the really interesting part. These facts were highlighted only after the Delhi High Court condemned Afzal to death. Around the time his appeal came up before the Supreme Court, it became perceptible that Afzal had no lawyer during the entire trial court phase. The lawyer appointed in the Delhi high court phase actually told the court that Afzal wanted to die not through the noose but a lethal injection (has anyone heard of a defence lawyer making this request)? None of the 80 witnesses produced by the prosecution identified Afzal as a Jaish-e-Mohammad militant; officers from the J&K STF came to the sessions trial — conducted by a special court in a record six month period — in Delhi and threatened Afzal with dire consequences to him and his family if he did not toe their line; on 20th December, 2001, the Delhi Police Special Cell organized a totally illegal media trial in which Afzal was made to confess his crime under duress; during this illegal media trial, Afzal refused to name SAR Geelani, the other accused, as guilty, upon which, Rajbir Singh, the Delhi Police Special Cell ACP, shouted at him; Tahir Shams Khan, the Aaj Tak correspondent, heard Rajbir Singh’s rebuke to Afzal and deposed before the Court; Tahir’s testimony became an important point in Geelani’s acquittal by the Delhi high court.

Ashok Chand, another Delhi Police Special Cell officer deposed falsely before the Delhi High Court that his agency did not organize Afzal’s media trial on 20th December 2001; the Delhi high court noted duly that Ashok Chand lied under oath; yet no action was taken against Chand. Rajbir Singh too was not censured. Accused of staging several false encounters and corruption deals involving money, Rajbir Singh was shot dead in 2008 at Gurgaon, by a property dealer over some monetary dispute.

Afzal finally got a lawyer—Sushil Kumar—at the Supreme Court stage. But Supreme Court can only review cases—it cannot look into the evidence. While upholding Afzal’s death sentence, the Supreme Court admitted that despite scant evidence against Afzal, the maximum punishment had to be given to Afzal to `satisfy the collective conscience of the nation’.

Never ever in the world will you hear a Court of law using such words in an official judgment. So let’s not beat around the bush—the truth about Afzal Guru’s involvement in the 13th December 2001 Parliament attack is speculative—as spelled out by Omar Abdullah, the J&K Chief Minister, the evidence in Afzal’s case is purely circumstantial and it does not fall into the rarest of rare categories. Questions and answers

Then why was Afzal hanged? This is where the complexity arises — if the Supreme Court of India gives a right-wing, bizarre judgment, how much a liberal Government—such as the Congress led UPA — can do? A Leftist government can of course ground to pulp an unfair Court judgment. But a liberal Government is very vulnerable to right-wing pressure, especially when the global atmosphere is anti-Muslim and right-wing, and major institutions of the Indian State—like the bureaucracy, Police, Army, secret services, everything—are either badly infiltrated by the RSS or under the grip of Islamophobia.

People will ask how Sushil Kumar Shinde — the Home Minister — could be so callous as to not inform Afzal’s family (sending information through speed post in this age doesn’t even sound funny) or allow him to meet his wife and family members for one last time? This again, is something for which the right-wing is responsible. The home ministry is certainly at fault and logically Shinde should take the blame. But time will tell in what way he was actually set-up by right-wing forces in the Home Ministry who were angry with Shinde for focussing on Sanghi terrorism and issuing a list of 10 Sanghi terrorists.

Which brings us to the main point: Afzal Guru’s wacky hanging marks only the beginning of a process. Once kick-started, a liberal government cannot halt the progression of harsh punishments to real terrorists.

Hindutva terror

Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru said that majority communalism is more dangerous than minority communalism. In that sense, Saadhvi Pragya and Raj Kumar Purohit and other Hindutvawaadi terrorists pose a greater menace to Indian national interests. Afzal Guru was just a pawn in a larger game. But Raj Kumar Purohit, the chief accused in the Malegaon, Mecca Masjid and Samjhauta Express blasts, is a man of the Military Intelligence. His charge-sheet says his group wanted to organize a right-wing coup in India, scrap the Indian Constitution and declare India a fascist Hindu Rashtra.

The RSS and the BJP have never once condemned Raj Kumar Purohit, Saadhvi Pragya and other Hindutvawaadi terrorists. Recently, a totally weird operation was launched by the Hindutvawaadi forces in the Indian army to save Raj Kumar Purohit. The latter was portrayed as a plant send by the Military Intelligence to spy on right-wing groups engaged in terror!

Rajiv Gandhi and Beant Singh’s killers will get the punishment they deserve—Delhi gang-rape accused also will be tried speedily. But Government of India needs to get its act together on the Hindutva terror angle. This current poses a direct threat to the very existence of Indian democracy, secularism, the Indian republic, and the life and liberty of Indian citizens. Fast track courts need to be set-up; just as Afzal Guru was tried speedily, Purohit, Saadhvi Pragya and others should be tried within a six-month time framework and punished immediately if found guilty. Institutions involved in Hindutvawaadi thinking — especially the Military Intelligence, Intelligence Bureau, secret services, media and the judiciary—need to be purged and detoxified from such influences.

Hypocrisy of the right-wing

The RSS-BJP and people like Narendra Modi should stop being hypocritical. They are practising double standards—one for Afzal Guru and the other for the likes of Raj Kumar Purohit. Till date, Narendra Modi has not condemned Sanghi-Hindutvawaadi terrorists. For the time being, a liberal State is tolerating Sangh Parivar excesses and Narendra Modi’s deviations. The Courts too are taking a soft view as far as Sangh Parivar and Modi are concerned. On 9th February 2013, students and citizens protesting peacefully at Jantar Mantar were assaulted—girls molested—by Bajrang Dal activists and the Delhi Police. Rajnath Singh, the BJP President, was present when the hijabs of Kashmiri Muslim girls were being torn. The entire 9th February episode is a slap in the face of the Home Ministry. It reveals the collusion between right wing-communal forces and the Delhi Police.

This approach has to change. Sushil Kumar Shinde has to act immediately on the 9th February incident, clampdown on Bajrang Dal, and dismiss and arrest Delhi Police personell of the Mandir Marg Police station. Else, the consequences could be fatal. Already, the Home Ministry is facing flak for not allowing Afzal Guru’s family to offer prayers at his Tihar grave. This kind of approach is inhuman. The question of sending Afzal’s remains to Kashmir should also remain open. What is the Government afraid of? Does the UPA Government lacks MPs with balls, who can boldly come forward and defend a decision?

The real test before Congress is to convince Kashmiris, dissenters, human rights activists in the long run that Afzal Guru’s hanging perhaps, was a necessary evil. It is the job of politicians to win over hostile constituencies. If the Congress leadership fails to convince Kashmiris on the Afzal Guru issue, it will lose forever the moral right to govern India.

Already, Afzal Guru’s hanging has sent a very bad message to Jammu and Kashmir, an integral part of India. The unjust execution has hurt the very idea of India. There was relative peace in the region for the last two years. But now, there is genuine fear about thousands of Kashmiri youths getting radicalised and reviving militancy in the valley.

National crisis

In moments of national crisis, a liberal State has to take tough action. If it can hang Afzal Guru, it can also mete out similar punishments to Raj Kumar Purohit and Hindutvawaadis. Narendra Modi basically is a coward; fearing protests from anti-RSS forces like Swami Swarupanand — the Shankaracharya of Dwarika and Badrinath — he chickened out from going to Allahabad on 12th February for a dip in the Sangam during the great Maha Kumbh Mela.

It’s time we called a spade a spade. The Government of India has decided to shed those aspects of liberalism which were being seen as weaknesses by right-wing forces, fundamentalists and terrorists of all—Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian—denominations.

Kashmiri separatists

Apart from BJP’s doublespeak, the chicanery of Kashmiri separatists also stands exposed. They did not ensure that Afzal Guru gets a proper lawyer when it might have mattered; various Hurriyat groups conveniently forgot to allocate funds for Afzal Guru. Now, they are shedding crocodile tears, and, by linking Afzal Guru with Maqbool Bhatt, are trying to instigate Kashmiris.

The BJP-RSS are playing similar politics as the Kashmiri separatists. Their `nationalism’ stands exposed—by supporting the Akali Dal on the Balwant Singh Rajoana issue, they have shown their basic, anti-national character. Rise in militancy in Kashmir will serve BJP’s interests—it is the party’s secret desire that such a development indeed takes place—is the Congress led UPA Government going to oblige the right wing? Or is India’s Grand Old Party (GOP) and its governing alliance going to shed its liberal gallimaufry and retrieve its lost, Left-of-Centre/uncompromisingly secular, credentials?

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Be the first one to review.

Author

Amaresh Misra is an independent historian, author and novelist. Currently resident in Delhi, he is also a freelance journalist, political commentator, columnist on foreign policy, an anti-fascist, civil/minority/Dalit-Adivasi rights activist, and a film critic. His publications include War of Civilizations: India AD 1857, Vols 1 and 2 (Delhi: Rupa, 2007); Mangal Pandey: The True Story of an Indian Revolutionary (Delhi: Rupa, 2005); Lucknow: Fire of Grace: The Story of its Renaissance, Revolution and the Aftermath (Delhi: Harper Collins, 1999.) and The Minister’s Wife (a novel—Penguin, 2002). He is a recipient of several anti-communal awards, and has lectured widely in Indian and American universities on the nationalist war of 1857, medieval and modern Indian history, vicissitudes of contemporary Indian politics and the battle for secularism in the Indian subcontinent. Presently, he is working on a new novel, a new book on Indian cinema, and a biography of Emperor Akbar.
He is also Convener, Anti Communal Front, Uttar Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee.

Amaresh Misra is an independent historian, author and novelist. Currently resident in Delhi, he is also a freelance journalist, political commentator, colum. . .